Athanasiadou , Ifigeneia Phd Candidate School of English

1. Plural mass nouns and the construal of individuation: cross-linguistic evidence from verbal and non-verbal behaviour in linguistic and non-linguistic contexts Athanasiadou, Ifigeneia Phd Candidate School of English Thessaloniki Cognitive Linguistics Reading Group Aristotle University and Dr. Athanasopoulos, Panos Reader University of Reading, United Kingdom

2. Introduction • Testing for the linguistic relativity hypothesis (Whorf 1956), previous studies have found that speakers of different languages conceptualize objects and substances in different ways(Lucy 1992; Imai and Gentner 1997; Athanasopoulos 2006, 2008; Sera and Goodrich 2010). • Studies conforming with the universal ontology position have revealed that, even when a language does not grammatically encode the count/mass noun distinction, speakers, by default, categorise objects by shape and substances by material (Soja et al. 1991; Imai and Gentner 1997; Athanasopoulos 2006, 2008).

3. Count/mass noun distinction • Conforming with Radden and Dirven (2007:64), objects can be discriminated from substances by relying on three complementary conceptualcriteria: i) boundedness, ii) internal composition, and iii) countability. • Objects and substances can also be distinguished on a number of grammatical attributes as well (Radden and Dirven 2007:66). For example, count nouns, unlike mass nouns, accept plural marking. • In the study, the ontological distinction between objects and substances, as being encoded in the grammatical count/mass noun distinction, is examined in two languages, namely in Greek and in English, with respect to the way this distinction is conceptualised and then expressed by speakers of the two corresponding languages.

4. Comparing Greek with English, the grammatical count/mass noun distinction is displayed in both languages (Tsoulas 2006, 2007; Athanasopoulos 2008; Athanasiadou 2009). • A binary number system is applied to both languages, where count nouns obtain both a singular and a plural form and can directly be preceded by numerals. • Regarding mass nouns, they behave similarly in Greek and in English, in that numerals cannot precede some instances of mass nouns (e.g., ?Aγórasaδíozáxares ‘?I bought two sugars’). The relevant numeral needs to be followed by a kind of unitizerin order for the mass noun to be quantified (e.g. Aγórasaδíokoutiázáxari ‘I bought two boxes of sugar’).

5. Mass noun pluralisation Mass nouns in Greek are regularly and systematically marked for plurality, unlike mass nouns in English. However, the existence of plural mass nouns in Greek is not a superficial linguistic convention, rather it contributes meaning. The relevant meaning is that of ‘there is more amount of substance than what would normally be expected or needed’ (Tsoulas 2007:18): • Έrixesnerástopátoma ?You spilt waters on the floor (Tsoulas 2007:4) • Gémises to spíti me xómata ?You filled the house with earths(Tsoulas 2007:4) These contexts do not involve ‘substance-to-object shifts’, named after Radden and Dirven (2007:71), since water/earth is neither measured in portions nor different varieties of water/earth are implied.

6. Current study Linguistic Task: • Greek and English monolingual native adult speakers first complete a picture-naming taskwith familiar count and mass nouns from the domain of food and drinks. • Pairs of pictures are presented in one of three syntactic conditions: the informative-syntax (a glass/some water), the neutral-syntax (the glass/the water), and the no-label condition (no syntactic cues or labels). • Potential pluralisation of count and mass nouns is examined in the two languages. • Prediction 1:Pluralisation of count nouns will systematically be applied to both languages, irrespective of syntactic context. • Prediction 2: Greek, when compared to English, speakers, will pluralise mass nouns more in all of the syntactic conditions. In Greek, thus, the grammatical count/mass noun distinction is hypothesized to be less strictly defined than in English.

7. Results • Proportion of plural marking for count and mass nouns by the two language groups across the syntactic contexts Plural count nouns Plural mass nouns • The results of the verbal task clearly show that both language groups significantly distinguish between count and mass nouns , confirming Tsoulas(2006, 2007), since they all gave a significantly greater amount of plural responses for count nouns than mass nouns across the syntactic conditions.

8. Results Proportion of plural marking for count and mass nouns by the two language groups across the syntactic contexts Plural count nouns Plural mass nouns • The two language groups pluralised count nouns to a similar extent across the syntactic contexts. • However, Greek speakers pluralised mass nouns significantly more than English speakers in neutral syntax as well as in a non-linguistic context.

9. Count/mass noun differentiation • Concerning count nouns, our prediction, that count nouns will be pluralised to a similar extent by Greek and English speakers across syntactic contexts, was hence confirmed. • Regarding mass nouns ,Greek, when compared to English, speakers pluralised mass nouns to a greater extent in neutral syntax as well as in no-label. Our second prediction was thus also confirmed, except when informative syntax was provided. • Athanasopoulos(2008) is thus supported in claiming that the count/mass distinction in nouns is less strictly marked in Greek than in English.

10. The question hence should not be on whether mass nouns are linguistically marked for number or not within a language group, but on the degree and regularity with which mass nouns are pluralised across language groups and syntactic contexts. • Regarding syntax, informative syntactic cues invite speakers to render the appropriate grammatical meaning. That is, count syntax enhances pluralisation of count nouns whereas mass syntax inhibits pluralisation of mass nouns. However, ambiguous syntax or non-existent syntactic cues/labels, allow for cross-linguistic grammatical differences to be revealed.

11. Seeking evidence for the linguistic relativity hypothesis, (Whorf 1956), which claims that language affects cognition, we cannot rely on verbal data alone, but we also need independent measures of non-verbal cognition. • We hence conducted a non-verbal cognitive task as well.

12. Cognitive task • After participating in the linguistic task, monolingual native adult Greek and English speakers also complete a cognitive task, that is a triads matching task. • They are presented with novel object and substance entities and are asked to choose between a shape or material alternate the one that best resembles the target entity. • Each participant is provided with one of threesyntactic contexts: an informative-syntax condition (a/some fep), a neutral-syntax condition (the fep), and a no-label condition.

13. Figure 1. Example triad from the ‘objects’ condition (a/the fep) Figure 2. Example triad from the ‘substances’ condition (some/the fep)

14. It is typically assumed that, where there is a count/mass noun distinction in the grammar of a language, subjects will generalise to new instances byshape, when they see an object, and bymaterialwhen they see a substance (Lucy & Gaskins 2001). • Prediction 1: Both language groups will categorise objects similarly, that is by shape, since they similarly pluralised count nouns in the linguistic task. • Prediction 2:However, since Greek, compared to English, speakers pluralised mass nouns more in the linguistic task, Greek speakers will categorize substances by shape to a greater extent than English speakers.

15. Results • Proportion of shape preferences for objects and substances by the two language groups across the syntactic contexts Object shape Substance shape • Both Greek and English speakers categorized objects significantly more by shape and substances significantly more by material in informative syntax. • Our first prediction, regarding a similar preference for object shape by the two language groups, was hence confirmed.

16. Results • Proportion of shape preferences for objects and substances by the two language groups across the syntactic contexts Object shape Substance shape • However, a greater preference for substance shape by Greek, when compared to English, speakers was not observed. Our second prediction was hence not confirmed. • Nevertheless, Athanasopoulos (2008) found that, in a non-linguistic context, Greek speakers selected substance shape more, when compared to English speakers.

17. Comparison of the two tasks • The linguistic and the cognitive task were compared using multiple regression analysis, comparing the two language groups across the two tasks by collapsing the syntax conditions within each language group. • The independent variables were plural responses for count nouns and plural responses for mass nouns and the dependent variable was shape scores for objects or shape scores for substances.

18. Greek speakers • When the dependent variable was shape scores for substances, the overall regression was significant, F (2, 33) =5.85, MSE=1.50, p<.01 (R2=.26). • The beta weight for mass nouns (β=.51) obtained a significant value(p<.01), showing that the more Greek participants pluralized mass nouns in the linguistic task, the more they categorized substances by shape in the cognitive task. Table 1.Count and mass noun plural production as predictors and substance shape as dependent variable across the two tasks for Greek speakers.

19. English speakers • When the dependent variable was shape scores for substances, the overall regression was not significant, F (2, 33) =1.67, MSE=1.43, p>.05 (R2=.09), suggesting no causal relationship between count/mass noun plural production and preference for substance shape by English speakers. Table 2.Count and mass noun plural production as predictors and substance shape as dependent variable across the two tasks for English speakers.

20. Conclusions for the two tasks • In the linguistic task and in neutral syntax as well as in a non-linguistic context, Greek speakers pluralised mass nouns more than English speakers. Greek speakers differentiated hence between count and mass nouns to a smaller extent than English speakers. Support for the linguistic relativity position is hence supplied. • In the cognitive task and in informative syntax, the two language groups performed similarly by selecting shape for objects and material for substances. Support for the universal ontology position is, thus, provided. • However, as the regressionanalyses revealed, the tendency to pluralize mass nouns in Greek predicts the tendency by Greek speakers to categorize substances based on shape. This clearly shows that the cognitive behaviourof speakers is influenced by the grammatical structure of their language as well, providing further support for the linguistic relativity hypothesis (Whorf 1956).

21. The findings of the linguistic task, namely that Greek, when compared to English, marks the count/mass noun distinction less strictly in its grammar, are hence supported by the results of the regressionanalysis, where mass noun pluralisation in Greek predicts the cognitive preference for substance shape by Greek speakers. • Informative syntax has been proved to coordinate language-specific with universal categorization patterns, since the two language groups, in both tasks, performed similarly, when informative syntactic cues were provided.

22. General conclusions • Metonymic relationships source from our conceptualising system and lead to the employment of metonymic linguistic expressions (Kövecses 2010), such as tríanerá‘three waters’. In the study, Greek speakers systematically employed such metonymic expressions and this linguistic patterning infiltrated their conceptualisation of substances as if they were objects. • Linguistic convention has also been argued to mark cross-linguistic category boundaries (Athanasopoulos 2008), like the convention of extensive mass noun pluralisation observed in Greek. The latter convention has henceproved sufficient to fine-tune the non-verbal categorisation preferences of Greek speakers.

23. The findings of the present study converge with the view that the cognitive behaviour of speakers of a language is governed neither completely by ontological universalism nor completely by linguistic relativism, but by an in-between state (Imai and Gentner 1997; Imai 2000; Imai and Mazuka 2003; Athanasopoulos 2008). The interrelation between innate knowledge and grammatical structure and of the latter two variables with real-world composition could lead to a better articulated knowledge of the human conceptualising system (Imai 2000; Imai and Mazuka 2003).

24. Research in cross-linguistic first language acquisition • Do young children, acquiring Greek, also pluralise mass nouns? • To what extent are their non-verbal categorisation preferences influenced by universal ontological knowledge and to what extent by the specific linguistic conventions of the language they are acquiring? • Are Greek and English children significantly differentiated in their construal and expression of individuation?

25. Future Research • When English children overgeneralise the plural morpheme from count to mass nouns, as part of acquiring the plural, to what extent do Greek children also display this pattern, as part of acquiring the plural, and to what extent as part of hearing plural mass nouns, extensively employed in the input they receive?

26. References • Athanasiadou, I. 2009. Count and Non-count Nouns in Greek and in English. Unpublished Master Thesis. United Kingdom: University of Essex. • Athanasopoulos, P. 2006. Effects of the grammatical representation of number on cognition in bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9, 89-96. • Athanasopoulos, P. 2008. Universal and language-specific patterns of categorization. Glossa, 4, 51-72. • Imai, M. 2000. Universal ontological knowledge and a bias toward language-specific categories in the construal of individuation. In S. Niemeier and R. Dirven (Eds.), Evidence for linguistic relativity (pp. 139-160).Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. • Imai, M., and Gentner, D. 1997. A crosslinguistic study of early word meaning: universal ontology and linguistic influence. Cognition, 62, 169-200. • Imai, M., and Mazuka, R. 2003. Re-evaluating linguistic relativity: Language-specific categories and the role of universal ontological knowledge in the construal of individuation. In D. Gentner and S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 429-464). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

27. Kövecses, Z. 2010. Metaphor: A practical introduction. 2nd edition. New York: Oxford University Press. • Lucy, J. A. 1992. Grammatical categories and cognition. A case study of the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • Lucy, J. A., and Gaskins, S. 2001. Grammatical categories and the development of classification preferences: A comparative approach. In M. Bowerman and S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development (pp. 257- 283). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • Radden, G. and Dirven, R. 2007. Cognitive English Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. • Sera, M. D. and Goodrich, W. 2010. Who thinks that a piece of furniture refers to a broken couch? Count-mass constructions and individuation in English and Spanish. Cognitive Linguistics, 21, 419-442. • Soja, N. N., Carey, S., and Spelke, E. 1991. Ontological categories guide young children’s inductions of word meaning: Object terms and substance terms. Cognition, 38, 179–211. • Tsoulas, G. 2006. Plurality of mass nouns and the grammar of number. Paper presented at the 29th GLOW colloquium in Barcelona. April 6-8, 2006. • Tsoulas, G. 2007. On the grammar of number and mass terms in Greek. Retrieved 23 March 2011 from <http://thesource.dlp.mit.edu:16080/greeksynsym/papers/Tsoulas.pdf> • Whorf, B. L. 1956. Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (J. B. Carroll, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.